On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 1:03 PM Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:54:29 -0700 > Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > emit_trace_foo() > > > > __trace_foo() > > > > this seems like the best approach, IMO. double-underscored variants > > are usually used for some specialized/internal version of a function > > when we know that some conditions are correct (e.g., lock is already > > taken, or something like that). Which fits here: trace_xxx() will > > check if tracepoint is enabled, while __trace_xxx() will not check and > > just invoke the tracepoint? It's short, it's distinct, and it says "I > > know what I am doing". > > Honestly, I consider double underscore as internal only and not something > anyone but the subsystem maintainers use. > > This, is a normal function where it's just saying: If you have it already > enabled, then you can use this. Thus, I don't think it qualifies as a "you > know what you are doing". > > Perhaps: call_trace_foo() ? > call_trace_foo has one collision with the tracepoint sched_update_nr_running and a function call_trace_sched_update_nr_running. I had considered this and later moved to trace_invoke_foo() because of the collision. But I can rename call_trace_sched_update_nr_running to something else if call_trace_foo is the general consensus.
Thanks, Vineeth
